Vice reveals that Qoomers secretly believe in Jewish blood libel

submitted by ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet from youtube.com

all 17 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Now to show this to Qoomers and tell them that what they accuse them of believing is unironically true.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What's the term for discrediting something legit by associating it with some bullshit, I mean besides "Hollywood". It's the same old story, any White advocate is a skinhead meth addict (as opposed to Antifa where there's NO drug use). In my experience people IRL do this; as soon as you get anywhere near the JQ or Race Realism they will write you off as a kook so they don't have to actually reason with you.

edit: The reason they're writing you off is they KNOW that racism and so called "antisemitism" are evil and they may have their minds poisoned for just arguing with you. They know you are evil so why debate. The Jews have done such a fantastic job of propaganda your own family will turn you in just for saying "It's OK to be White".

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

It's called "poisoning the well." Not that kind of well, oh gawd.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that's a bingo

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can't tell if this is meant to make anti-semites look retarded for being associated with Q or to make Qoomers look evil for being "closeted anti-semites"

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why not both?

[–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Guilt by association

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Muddying the water?

[–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I can hardly watch MSM any more. The combination of utter certitude, willful ignorance, and patronizing tone make their propaganda unbearable.

My own thought on the Q phenomena is that it is part organic (people realize their rulers do not have their interests at heart); in part driven by pranksters, trolls and the possibly mentally ill; and in part a psyop determined to muddy the water and protect elite interests by amplifying and spreading the most ridiculous theories possible thus discrediting people who hold genuine concerns.

Here is what a journalist interested in the documentary's talking points would at least touch on:

1) Is there a possibility that Pizzagate has some basis in fact?

The best coverage I have seen was an article at Counter Currents. It points out (amongst other things) the disturbing coded messages found in the leaked Podesta emails and while not accusing anyone of pedophilia points out it would be simple enough to ask for an alternative explanation of what the emails actually mean.

Counter Currents:

When I have referred to what I see as the more compelling pieces of evidence uncovered by the crowd-sourced investigation into Pizzagate, my point has not been to use these to say “Pizzagate is true and every single person looking into it is a hero,” but to say “the people investigating it are not idiots, and the facts they’ve been uncovering are not all worthless. Reasonable people could very well look at this and think that it gives us reason to be concerned that there may be something behind it. And if the media is telling you only about the most bizarre, reaching accusations without telling you any of the more interesting points that have been uncovered (which it is), it is not doing its proper job.” [Cont...]

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My own thought on the Q phenomena is that it is part organic (people realize their rulers do not have their interests at heart); in part driven by pranksters, trolls and the possibly mentally ill; and in part a psyop determined to muddy the water and protect elite interests by amplifying and spreading the most ridiculous theories possible thus discrediting people who hold genuine concerns.

I think it's a very deliberate propaganda campaign to co-opt conspiracy theorists into literally trusting the military-intelligence complex to take back the System without the boomers lifting a finger. The same NSA who they used to be paranoid over is suddenly a heroic underdog in a shadow civil war.

https://hedgewik.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/goyim-trust-plan-again-hedgewik-comic.png

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

2) What was the nature relationship between Epstein and the people he used to associate with?

We know that Washington has a long history of sexual blackmail. We know that Maxwell's father Robert Maxwell was an Israeli operative. We also know that Epstein had no credible source of income and was given an incredibly light sentence after being described as an intelligence asset. There has been no serious explanation given as to where his money came from or why his "friends" continued to associate with him after he had been outed as a pedophile. r/Epstein is a good source of raw data.

The U.S. government (and MSM) has been remarkably reluctant to shut down investigate. It shouldn't be left to handful of Redittors and self styled muckrakers to uncover.

[–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

3) Why do people talk about "blood libel" when at least one medieval scholar thinks the rumors of (admittedly rare) child sacrifice by Jewish occultists is credible.

A more interesting debate would be why aren't we allowed to discuss this? The extreme censorship of Ariel Toaff's views should be worth reporting on in itself.

The Occidental Observer:

[The murder of Simon of Trent] is the subject of a book published in early February 2007, Pasque di sangue. Ebrei d’Europa e omicidi rituali (English translation: Blood Passover. The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murder), which shows that there may well have been some truth to several “blood libels,” including the case in which Ashkenazi Jews of German descent living in the northern Italian city of Trent, near the Austrian border, were found guilty of murdering a Christian 2-year-old boy named Simone, crucifying him head down, mutilating his body and using his blood to bake matzot for Passover in 1475.

[Snip...]

What makes this book extraordinary is that it wasn’t written by a nasty “anti-Semite,” but by Professor Ariel Toaff, who is descended from a line of rabbis, is the son of Elio Toaff, former chief rabbi of Rome and considered Italy’s highest Jewish spiritual and moral authority from the end of World War II to the early 2000s, and is a rabbi himself. [Cont...]

Toaff was later forced to half-heartedly recant and nearly all copies of the book were destroyed but an English translation still exists on the Internet. As as an angry summary from the same website points out, Jews may have been victims but they were not always innocent.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

> Ashkenazi Jews of German descent

>of German descent

>Ashkenazi Jews

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I haven't read the book but Toaff is differentiating them from the already established Italian Jews. The German Ashkenazis were recent arrivals and were double outsiders, forming a separate ethnic and linguistic group that was resented by (and distinct from) the Jews who were already there.

I had a quick skim and it's an extremely detailed work of scholarship that paints a vivid portrait of life at the time. At some point I'll go through it and read it properly.

[–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

4) Rather than endlessly dismissing The Protocols as a forgery why not ask if it could be descriptive of a particular political strategy and whether it has relevance today?

Unz:

I remember some forum writer somewhere characterizing the Protocols as “based upon a true story,” suggesting that someone who was generally familiar with the secretive machinations of elite international Jews against the existing governments of Czarist Russia and other countries had drafted the document to outline his view of their strategic plans, and such an interpretation seems perfectly plausible to me.

Another reader somewhere claimed that the Protocols were pure fiction but quite significant nonetheless. He argued that the very keen insights into the methods by which a small conspiratorial group can quietly corrupt and overthrow powerful existing regimes arguably ranked the work alongside Plato’s The Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince as one of the three great classics of Western political philosophy, earning it a place on the required reading list of every Political Science 101 course. Indeed, the author of Ford’s books emphasizes that there are very few mentions of Jews anywhere in the Protocols, and all the implied connections to Jewish conspirators could be completely struck from the text without affecting its content whatsoever. [Cont...]

I am quoting Unz rather than endorsing him, the first paragraph seems ridiculously far fetched, but like Unz I agree The Protocols are worth being studied in their own right. His entire section on the book is worth reading. After wading through the endless "forgery" disclaimers, I also found the Wikipedia article which describes the pamphlet's origins to be of interest

After about an hour on the Internet I've roughly outlined a far more compelling basis for a documentary than the bland admonishments of Vice's so called "expert" who assures us that Q is nothing but a ridiculous conspiracy theory based on anti-Semitic libel.

If I have doubts then so do millions of other people. It is little wonder people are losing faith in the MSM when they simply act as apologists for the current order. In a sane world journalists would be interviewing people lsuch as Andrew Joyce and Whitney Webb. Until they do they can hardly complain that people seek out information on dissident sites that exist in the shadows of the Internet.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Unz also hosted this defense of Pizzagate investigations

To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been to defend “Pizzagate” as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all—for a specific reason, which I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.

Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the dividing line is between paranoid conspiracy theorist followers of “fake news” and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that—whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself—this framing of the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision.

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's the same article which I linked to earlier. Unz reposted it from Counter Currents.

Rightly so. As previously mentioned it's the most nuanced account I've seen. The fact the MSM is so unwilling to investigate speaks volumes in itself.

Edit: Thanks for posting. I had a browse of the comments threads which are always entertaining at Unz. Watching @RonW's sensible attempts to discredit the some wilder pizzagate will make you despair at the nature of on-line discourse (and realize how flimsy much of the evidence is).

On a more positive note Gregory Hood also has an article on the Q phenomena: